The Guardian's bike blog

Aside from that statement I found that to be quite an interesting take on the subject. Game theory is one of my interests and one I employ often when cycling through London. I like the evolutionary co-operative and defector analogies. It all fits in nicely

Certainly beat the reams of crap about tax and all that crap.

From the article:

The offence was not failing to notice the camera, it was actually driving too fast.

I guess what he is implying is that speeding is so common and acceptable to most people that his actual mistake/offence - regardless of the law - was to get caught.

He makes a good point that if you aren't observant enough to spot the massive yellow cameras then you definitely aren't a driver who is 'good enough to speed', as so many claim.

That bit and how exactly is it supposed to work to be a 'quiet law-abiding cyclist like me who only rides very slowly through red lights'?

Yes doesn't really seem to realise that it is possible to cycle and not RLJ.

I think the point is about the gap between legal and moral/social obligations both as a driver and as a cyclist.

bike blog on cycling infrastructure and the Get Britain Cycling Parliamentary Inquiry..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/feb/06/cycling-infrastructure-ignored-little-change

Makes for interesting reading..

What on the Guardian's bike blog do you like? What would you like to see more of?

How about Sparky trying out the Indoor Bmx track where Shanaze Reade trains?

Harlem Shake

Guardian comments generator...

I get the sense that many people who post up in the comments of the bike blog, don't actually like cycling, rabidly fear traffic and want everyone to dress up like a christmas tree for a 5 min ride to the park.

Personally I'd like more articles which don't talk about the dangers of cycling, as if you take your life in your hands every time you get into the saddle. More uplifting cycling stories, that show how cycling is fun, safe, enjoyable...

The imbalance needs to be redressed somehow, and the Guardian should be at the forefront of it. Rather than falling into lockstep with the other cycling is dangerous merchants..

yeah right^ its ridiculous the comments on these blogs are just so polar, cant even be bothered to scan anymore

Agree with corny
The Times campaign is fear based due to the trigger that kicked it off. The sad story of Mary Bowen. A cycling promotion blog from the guardian would be a good balance to that

+1

Just to be clear: I don't write for them anymore. I'm asking out of curiosity. Interesting to see what people are after.

Guardian has its finger on the cycling clothing pulse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/mar/27/city-cycling-fashion-rapha-bike-blog

I enjoyed that one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/16/roads-not-built-for-cars-book
Now we want some back.

Tanks, that made me laugh, infact this forum seems like a fun gang...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/28/cyclist-regrets-posting-video-road-rage-attack

At the end of the article : in London 30% of cyclists are invisible to car drivers...

From the article:

"It allowed researchers to establish exactly where drivers directed their vision, which was often at clouds, buildings and passersby."

eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/28/cyclist-regrets-posting-video-road-rage-attack

At the end of the article : in London 30% of cyclists are invisible to car drivers...

This why you ride in a primary position. 30% ride in the gutter...

Wonder if the Bike Blog will respond to this daft editorial/troll in the Observer:
"Cities are for cars, buses and trains."

doh, what was said above ^

Thus we find ourselves in the
middle of a campaign to presume guilt on
the part of motorists in any road accidents
involving cyclists. The proponents of this
extraordinary nonsense tell us that, as
cyclists can't kill you and cars do, then
automotive vehicles must be presumed
guilty in any incidents involving cyclists.
I feel moved to state here that I'm not
averse to a wee pedal myself from time to
time, but...

Good comment though

Imagine for a moment you are walking along a pavement, a vehicle passes you, it kicks up a stone and blinds
you in one eye. If you have to prove negligence then you will not be entitled to compensation, the driver did
nothing wrong. Strict liability says that the possibility of kicking up a stone and blinding someone is an inherent
risk of driving, the fact the driver chose to drive the car and put you at risk in that way means that they have
accepted they will be held liable if that risk is realised.
Strict liability is nothing to do with criminal responsibility, strict liability recognises that the driver is the one who
has introduced the risk to the public space and they have done so to their advantage . Driving in an urban
setting is morally hazardous, the driver accrues the benefits of driving but not the risks. All strict liability does is
recognise that if you wish to benefit by taking risks at the expense of others, you should be prepared to pay up
(or rather, your insurer should) when that risk is realised, consequently strict liability isn't limited to cars vs
bicycles, it says the larger vehicle, the one owing the greater risk is more liable HGV>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
Strict liabilty is reserved for "inherently dangerous" activities or products. The classic example used is that of a
circus: If a lion escapes and injures an audience member, it doesn't matter how strong the lion's cage was, or
how closely the lion was watched.
The reasoning behind strict liability is to hold whoever benefits from a dangerous activity - demolition,
transporting hazardous materials, using dangerous machines, etc. - accountable for any damaged caused by
that activity.
Besides which who'd have thought in the 21st century such a bigoted, ignorant view still existed, the century of
the car is over, car use is declining, deal with it. The place with the highest number of cyclists is the centre of
London, the people working in the city aren't any more green or health conscious than anyone else, but they do
have a transport problem and have recognised that cycling is a far more efficient, cheaper and faster form of
transport than the car.
By undermining the use of bicycles you create a distorted market in personal transport which limits people to an
inefficient mode in urban areas, making society poorer. People have to be able to choose the most efficient
mode for a particular journey, sometimes it will be the car, sometimes the train, sometimes the bicycle, every
journey is different. You say cities are for cars, in fact the complete opposite is true, cars are at their most
inefficient in cities, being no faster than any other mode of transport (usually slower when you include finding a
parking space and walking to and from the car) and costing a lot more, hence why in our largest city, London,
car use is lower than any other part of the country.

^ it is a good comment but he deserves a nerg for "hence why", whoever he is

It is a *very *good comment. A very, very good comment.

Does that mean it's your comment? Did you say "hence why"? A professional wordsmith?!